Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 16 references

The problem of escape: a missing bit in the theory of the origin of cosmic rays

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-08 · glm-5.2

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Cosmic ray escape is self-regulated, not passive

desk verdict Solid review of multi-scale CR escape, but the emergent-halo thesis rests on unsettled NLLD microphysics that the paper acknowledges but doesn't resolve. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.06024 v1 pith:63PUMGET submitted 2026-07-07 astro-ph.HE

P. Blasi (GSSI) , E. Amato (INAF/Arcetri) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE PACS 95.85.Ry98.38.Mz52.35.Py
keywords cosmicescaperayssourcesconditionsgalaxyhostingphenomena
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the escape of cosmic rays from their acceleration sites, their near-source neighborhoods, and their host galaxies is a nonlinear, self-regulated process rather than a passive leakage. The central mechanism is a feedback loop: escaping particles carry electric currents that excite plasma instabilities (both resonant and non-resonant streaming instabilities), which amplify magnetic fields and in turn scatter and confine those same particles. At supernova remnant shocks, this self-excitation of turbulence sets the maximum achievable energy and shapes the time-integrated spectrum released into the interstellar medium, which is not a clean power law but carries bumps and dips in the 5-30 TeV range. Around sources, the steep cosmic ray gradient excites further instabilities that suppress diffusion, accumulating excess grammage and producing extended gamma-ray emission. On galactic scales, the authors argue that the cosmic ray halo is not a fixed box with prescribed boundary conditions but an emergent structure, self-consistently determined by the balance between self-generated turbulence and its damping (particularly nonlinear Landau damping). They further propose that this self-confinement extends to the circumgalactic medium around luminous galaxies, potentially explaining the observed suppression of ultra-high-energy cosmic ray flux around 10^18 eV.

What carries the argument

The feedback loop connecting escaping cosmic ray currents to plasma instability growth (resonant and non-resonant streaming instabilities), magnetic field amplification, enhanced scattering, and confinement. Nonlinear Landau damping serves as the primary saturation mechanism for self-generated turbulence on galactic scales, and its microphysics determines whether self-confinement dominates over pre-existing turbulence.

What would settle it

If nonlinear Landau damping rates are substantially different from current models (as recent hybrid-PIC simulations suggest they may be), then self-generated confinement on galactic scales weakens, the halo ceases to be emergent in the way described, and the connection to UHECR suppression breaks.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that cosmic ray escape at every scale, from the shock to the galaxy to the circumgalactic medium, is governed by the same self-regulating mechanism: escaping particles excite streaming instabilities that confine them, and this feedback, not the acceleration mechanism alone, determines maximum energies, source spectra, transport properties, and the very size of the galactic halo. The galactic halo is recast as an emergent structure arising from the coupling between cosmic ray currents and interstellar plasma, rather than a pre-existing container with fixed boundaries.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's quantitative conclusions depend on how well nonlinear Landau damping is modeled, and the authors acknowledge this microphysics is unsettled: recent simulations show that damping rates depend on all wave modes with smaller wavenumber, not just the resonant mode, and that pre-existing turbulence can drastically reduce the importance of self-generated transport on galactic scales. If the damping physics differs from what is assumed, the conclusions about halo size, 1

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The source spectrum injected into galactic transport calculations is not a simple power law but carries structure shaped by escape dynamics, meaning transport models that assume clean power-law injection are missing physically motivated spectral features.
  • If the galactic halo is emergent rather than fixed, standard cosmic ray propagation codes that impose free-escape boundaries at prescribed locations are solving a different problem than nature poses, and their parameter fits may not correspond to physical quantities.
  • Self-confinement of cosmic rays around luminous galaxies could suppress the flux of particles below 10^18 eV, offering a physical explanation for the spectral features seen in Auger data without requiring exotic injection spectra.
  • The lack of detected PeVatron candidates among young supernova remnants, combined with theoretical limits on magnetic field amplification, raises the question of whether standard SNRs can produce the knee-region cosmic ray flux at all.
  • Near-source suppressed diffusivity contributes to diffuse gamma-ray and neutrino emission that is not accounted for in standard diffuse emission models, potentially affecting interpretations of LHAASO and Fermi-LAT data.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. This review article by Blasi and Amato discusses the role of cosmic-ray (CR) escape in shaping the spectra observed at Earth, covering three scales: escape from SNR shocks (§2), from near-source regions (§3), and from the host Galaxy (§4). The central thesis is that CR escape is a nonlinear, self-regulated process in which escaping particles excite streaming instabilities that in turn confine them, and that this self-regulation—rather than ad hoc boundary conditions—sets maximum energies, shapes source spectra, and determines the structure of the Galactic halo. The paper synthesizes results from the authors' own body of work and that of others, covering the non-resonant Bell instability, the Ptuskin & Zirakashvili source spectrum prescription, near-source grammage and cocoons, and the emergent-halo picture based on self-generated turbulence balanced by nonlinear Landau damping (NLLD).

Significance. The topic is timely and important: the question of how CRs escape their sources and galaxies is central to connecting acceleration theory to observed spectra, and the unifying perspective across scales (shock, near-source, galactic) is valuable. The paper correctly attributes the standard equations (Eqs. 1–5) and honestly acknowledges open problems, including the unsettled NLLD microphysics and the lack of confirmed PeVatron SNRs. The discussion of observational anchors (DAMPE spectral features, LHAASO diffuse emission, LHAASO upper limits around Cas A, Auger UHECR suppression) grounds the theoretical discussion. The UHECR confinement claim (§4, Blasi & Amato 2019; Cermenati et al. 2026) is a falsifiable prediction tied to the non-resonant instability around luminous galaxies.

major comments (2)
  1. §4, penultimate paragraph: The paper's most distinctive claim—that the Galactic halo is an emergent structure determined by the balance of self-generated turbulence and NLLD damping (Dogiel et al. 2020; Chernyshov et al. 2022, 2024)—is acknowledged to rest on the Lee & Völk (1973) NLLD prescription. The paper itself cites Schroer et al. (2025, 2026), which show that (1) the NLLD damping rate at wavenumber k receives contributions from all modes with smaller k, not just the resonant mode as in Lee & Völk, and (2) pre-existing turbulence can 'drastically reduce the importance of self-generated transport on Galactic scales.' The paper states that the Dogiel/Chernyshov models 'remain viable' without demonstrating why. Since the spectral features at 300 GV and 20 TV rigidity—the main observational anchor for the emergent-halo picture—depend on the location of z*(E) where diffusion and advecst
  2. §4, penultimate paragraph (continued): times equalize, and since z*(E) is sensitive to the NLLD rate, a quantitative or even semi-quantitative argument for why the corrected NLLD rates do not destroy the emergent-halo structure is needed. At minimum, the paper should state explicitly whether the Dogiel/Chernyshov calculations use the Lee & Völk rate or the corrected rate, and what the expected shift in z*(E) would be. This is the microphysical foundation of the paper's central organizing thesis and should be addressed before publication.
minor comments (7)
  1. §2, Fig. 1 caption: The left panel shows Emax(t) with vertical lines for the Sedov-Taylor transition and the non-resonant-to-resonant transition, but the axis labels and units are not fully described in the caption. Adding explicit labels for the vertical lines and clarifying the x-axis units would make the figure self-contained.
  2. §2, Eq. (5): The numerical coefficient ~100 is derived assuming Λ ≃ 10 and n ~ 5 e-folds, but the dependence on n is not shown explicitly in the equation. Since n is a free parameter, stating the assumed value in the equation caption or inline would help the reader.
  3. §3, Fig. 2: The cocoon grammage is described as '0.4 g/cm² (constant in energy with an exponential cutoff at rigidity 20 TV)' but the figure caption says R0 = 20 TV. The notation R0 is introduced only in the caption, not in the main text. Using consistent notation between text and caption would improve clarity.
  4. §4: The transition from discussing NLLD microphysics to the UHECR confinement claim (Blasi & Amato 2019; Cermenati et al. 2026) is abrupt. A transitional sentence explaining how the emergent-halo picture connects to the circumgalactic non-resonant instability would help the reader.
  5. §5: The summary states that 'the halo is not a static structure of prescribed size, but rather an emerging one' as a conclusion, but given the unresolved NLLD issue discussed in §4, the summary should acknowledge this caveat more explicitly rather than presenting the emergent-halo picture as established.
  6. The reference list includes several 2026-dated papers (Cermenati et al. 2026; Capanema et al. 2026; Schroer et al. 2026). The journal should verify that these are properly published or in-press at the time of the manuscript's final version, as DOIs and volume/page numbers may require updating.
  7. §3: The discussion of turbulent damping cites Farmer & Goldreich (2004) and notes that its importance has been 'questioned by Cerri (2024),' but does not elaborate on the nature of the disagreement. A brief clarification of what Cerri (2024) found would help readers unfamiliar with that work.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. The referee raises one substantive point, concerning the viability of the emergent-halo picture in light of the corrected NLLD rates from Schroer et al. (2025, 2026). We agree that this deserves a more explicit treatment in the manuscript and will revise accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §4, penultimate paragraph: The paper's most distinctive claim—that the Galactic halo is an emergent structure determined by the balance of self-generated turbulence and NLLD damping (Dogiel et al. 2020; Chernyshov et al. 2022, 2024)—is acknowledged to rest on the Lee & Völk (1973) NLLD prescription. The paper itself cites Schroer et al. (2025, 2026), which show that (1) the NLLD damping rate at wavenumber k receives contributions from all modes with smaller k, not just the resonant mode as in Lee & Völk, and (2) pre-existing turbulence can 'drastically reduce the importance of self-generated transport on Galactic scales.' The paper states that the Dogiel/Chernyshov models 'remain viable' without demonstrating why. Since the spectral features at 300 GV and 20 TV rigidity—the main observational anchor for the emergent-halo picture—depend on the location of z*(E) where diffusion and advec[]

    Authors: The referee is correct that the current text asserts viability of the Dogiel/Chernyshov models without providing the supporting argument. We will revise the manuscript to address this explicitly. To be precise about the physics: the Schroer et al. (2025, 2026) results show that the Lee & Völk (1973) rate underestimates the NLLD damping rate at a given wavenumber k, because modes with smaller k also contribute. This means that self-generated waves are damped more efficiently than in the Lee & Völk prescription, which would push z*(E)—the transition height where diffusive and advective transport times become comparable—closer to the disk. The key question is whether this shift is modest enough that the emergent-halo structure survives, or whether it is so large that self-generation is effectively suppressed on Galactic scales. The Dogiel et al. (2020) and Chernyshov et al. (2022, 2024) calculations use the Lee & Völk rate, not the corrected rate. We will state this explicitly in the revised manuscript. We cannot, at present, provide a full quantitative recalculation of z*(E) with the corrected NLLD rate, as this requires solving the full wave-CR transport problem self-consistently—a task that is beyond the scope of this review. However, we can offer the following semi-quantitative argument for why the models remain viable rather than being ruled out: (1) The Schroer et al. finding that pre-existing turbulence can 'drastically reduce the importance of self-generated transport' applies specifically to the regime where a substantial pre-existing turbulent cascade is present at the relevant wavenumbers. In the Dogiel/Chernyshov models, the situation is different: self-generated waves dominate at the resonant wavenumbers for sub-TeV CRs, and the pre-existing turbulence at thes revision: partial

  2. Referee: §4, penultimate paragraph (continued): times equalize, and since z*(E) is sensitive to the NLLD rate, a quantitative or even semi-quantitative argument for why the corrected NLLD rates do not destroy the emergent-halo structure is needed. At minimum, the paper should state explicitly whether the Dogiel/Chernyshov calculations use the Lee & Völk rate or the corrected rate, and what the expected shift in z*(E) would be. This is the microphysical foundation of the paper's central organizing thesis and should be addressed before publication.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that the manuscript should, at minimum, state explicitly which NLLD prescription the Dogiel/Chernyshov calculations employ, and provide a semi-quantitative discussion of the expected impact of the corrected rates. We will add a dedicated paragraph to §4 addressing the following points: (a) The Dogiel et al. (2020) and Chernyshov et al. (2022, 2024) calculations use the Lee & Völk (1973) NLLD rate. (b) The corrected rate from Schroer et al. (2025, 2026) is larger, because it includes contributions from all modes with k' < k. This would reduce the height z*(E) at which self-generation dominates over damping, i.e., the effective halo size would shrink. (c) The magnitude of this shift depends on the spectrum of pre-existing turbulence, which is itself uncertain. In the limit where pre-existing turbulence is subdominant at the resonant wavenumbers for ~GeV–TeV CRs—a regime that is physically motivated in the inner halo where self-generation is strongest—the additional damping from non-resonant modes is a correction of order unity rather than an order-of-magnitude effect, and the qualitative structure of the emergent halo is preserved. (d) In the opposite limit, where a strong pre-existing turbulent cascade is present, the Schroer et al. results indicate that self-generated transport could be substantially suppressed, and the emergent-halo picture would need to be revisited. We will state clearly that a definitive answer requires repeating the Dogiel/Chernyshov calculations with the corrected NLLD rate, which is an important direction for future work. We acknowledge that our current statement that the models 'remain viable' is stronger than what we can rigorously demonstrate, and we will temper it accordingly, framing it as a plausible but not yet定量地 revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity found: this is a review article that summarizes prior results without presenting a derivation chain that could reduce to its own inputs.

full rationale

This paper is a review article (Sections 2-4) summarizing the role of CR escape from sources, near-source regions, and galaxies. It does not present a new derivation or prediction whose output could be checked against its inputs. The equations that appear (Eqs. 1-5 in Section 2) are standard results from Bell (2004) and Schure & Bell (2013), reproduced for context, not derived from the authors' own prior work and then presented as new predictions. The central thesis — that the Galactic halo is an emergent structure from self-generated turbulence and NLLD damping — is supported by citing external calculations (Dogiel et al. 2020; Chernyshov et al. 2022, 2024; Evoli et al. 2018), not by re-deriving it here. The self-citations (Blasi & Amato 2019; Blasi et al. 2015; Schroer et al. 2025, 2026; Ambrosone et al. 2025) are appropriate for a review: they reference prior work by the authors, but the present paper does not claim to independently derive or predict results that are equivalent to those cited works by construction. The NLLD microphysics concern raised by the skeptic headline is a correctness/model-validity issue, not a circularity issue: the paper openly acknowledges that Schroer et al. (2025, 2026) show the Lee & Völk (1973) NLLD rate is incomplete, and states that the Dogiel/Chernyshov models 'remain viable' without proving it — this is an unsupported claim about model robustness, not a circular derivation. No equation in the paper reduces to its own inputs by definition, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no self-citation chain forces the conclusion. The derivation chain is self-contained as a review.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or entities. The free parameters are standard in the DSA and transport literature. The axioms are a mix of standard theory and domain assumptions, with one organizing hypothesis (emergent halo) that functions as a working assumption rather than a proven result. No invented entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • xi_CR (acceleration efficiency) = ~0.1
    Used in Eq. 5 to estimate the Mach number threshold for non-resonant instability; treated as a typical value, not derived.
  • n (number of e-folds for instability growth) = ~5
    Stated as 'typically assumed' in §2; controls the maximum energy estimate but is not derived from first principles.
  • Lambda (logarithmic energy ratio) = ~10
    Defined as ln(E_max/m_p c^2) in §2; a standard approximation in DSA theory.
  • coccoon grammage (sigma_c,0) = 0.4 g/cm^2
    Adopted in §3 (Fig. 2) for near-source grammage, with a cutoff rigidity R_0 = 20 TV; both are assumed values, not derived.
  • R_0 (cutoff rigidity for cocoons) = 20 TV
    Used in Fig. 2 for the energy dependence of near-source grammage; assumed, not derived.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Diffusive shock acceleration produces power-law spectra at Newtonian shocks
    Invoked in §2 as established theory (Krymskii 1977; Bell 1978).
  • domain assumption Quasi-linear theory correctly describes wave-particle interactions for self-generated turbulence
    Used throughout §4 for the diffusion coefficient in self-generated turbulence; the paper acknowledges this is an approximation.
  • domain assumption Nonlinear Landau damping rate equals the streaming instability growth rate in steady state
    Invoked in §4 as the standard approach (Lee & Völk 1973); the paper itself notes this is unsettled based on Schroer et al. (2025, 2026).
  • ad hoc to paper The Galactic halo is an emergent structure rather than a fixed boundary
    Central organizing claim of §4, attributed to Evoli et al. (2018) and Dogiel et al. (2020); treated as a working hypothesis rather than a proven result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The problem of escape: a missing bit in the theory of the origin of cosmic rays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/63PUMGET

@misc{pith2026260706024,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The problem of escape: a missing bit in the theory of the origin of cosmic rays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/63PUMGET}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.06024}
}
read the original abstract

The escape of cosmic rays from their sources, as well as from the region surrounding a source, or from the galaxy hosting the sources, is a non-linear process that involves a complex chain of events, often overlooked. On the other hand, these phenomena are responsible for setting the maximum energy in accelerators, shaping the source spectra and determining the conditions for escape from the galaxy hosting the sources, a process that is usually modeled by imposing ad hoc boundary conditions in our equations. Here we discuss some of these phenomena and how they affect the spectra of cosmic rays measured at the Earth.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06024 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: maximum energy as a function of time for parameters typical of a type Ia SNR. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: Diffuse gamma ray emission in the inner Galaxy accounting for cocoons where CRs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., Allekotte, I., Almela, A., et al

    Aab, A., Abreu, P., Aglietta, M., Albury, J. M., Allekotte, I., Almela, A., et al. (2020). Measurement of the cosmic-ray energy spectrum above 2.5 × 1018 eV using the pierre auger observatory. Phys. Rev. D 102, 062005. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.062005 Abeysekara, A. U., Albert, A., Alfaro, R., Alvarez, C., Álvarez, J. D., Arceo, R., et al. (2017). Extended...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.062005 2020

  2. [2]

    Escape Bao, Y., Blasi, P., and Chen, Y

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5c Frontiers 10 Blasi et al. Escape Bao, Y., Blasi, P., and Chen, Y. (2024). Regions of Suppressed Diffusion around Supernova Remnants? Ap.J. 966,

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1e5c 2024

  3. [3]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3939 Bell, A. R. (1978). The acceleration of cosmic rays in shock fronts – I. MNRAS 182,

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3939 1978

  4. [4]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07942.x , journal=

    doi:10. 1093/mnras/182.2.147 Bell, A. R. (2004). Turbulent amplification of magnetic field and diffusive shock acceleration of cosmic rays. MNRAS 353, 550–558. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08097.x Beresnyak, A., Jones, T. W., and Lazarian, A. (2009). Turbulence-induced magnetic fields and the structure of Cosmic Ray modified shocks. Astrophys. J. 707, 154...

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08097.x 2004

  5. [5]

    As- tron

    doi:10.3847/ 1538-4357/ac8f42 Chernyshov, D. O., Ivlev, A. V., and Dogiel, V. A. (2024). Secondary cosmic-ray nuclei in the Galactic halo model with nonlinear Landau damping. A&A 686, A165. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/ 202348766 Cristofari, P., Blasi, P., and Amato, E. (2020). The low rate of Galactic pevatrons. Astroparticle Physics 123, 102492. doi:10.1016/j....

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/ 2024

  6. [6]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ abba31 Drury, L. O. and Downes, T. P. (2012). Turbulent magnetic field amplification driven by cosmic-ray pressure gradients. MNRAS 427,

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ 2012

  7. [7]

    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22106.x Drury, L. O. and Falle, S. A. E. G. (1986). On the Stability of Shocks Modified by Particle Acceleration. MNRAS 223,

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22106.x 2012

  8. [8]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/223.2.353 Evoli, C., Aloisio, R., and Blasi, P. (2019). Galactic cosmic rays after the AMS-02 observations. Phys. Rev. D 99, 103023. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.103023 Evoli, C., Blasi, P., Morlino, G., and Aloisio, R. (2018). Origin of the Cosmic Ray Galactic Halo Driven by Advected Turbulence and Self-Generated Waves. Phys. Rev. Lett. 121,...

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/223.2.353 2019

Show all 16 references
  1. [9]

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/02/015 Farmer, A. J. and Goldreich, P. (2004). Wave Damping by Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence and Its Effect on Cosmic-Ray Propagation in the Interstellar Medium. Ap.J. 604, 671–674. doi:10.1086/382040 Gabici, S., Casanova, S., Aharonian, F. A., and ...

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    P., et al

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.1009.5291 Girichidis, P., Naab, T., Walch, S., Hanasz, M., Mac Low, M.-M., Ostriker, J. P., et al. (2016). Launching Cosmic-Ray-driven Outflows from the Magnetized Interstellar Medium. Ap.J. Lett. 816, L19. doi:10.3847/2041-8205/816/2/L19 Girichidis, P., Wer...

    2016 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    doi:10.1126/science.1155788 Krymskii, G. F. (1977). A regular mechanism for the acceleration of charged particles on the front of a shock wave. Akademiia Nauk SSSR Doklady 234, 1306–1308 Kulsrud, R. and Pearce, W. P. (1969). The Effect of Wave-Particle Interactions on the Prop...

    1977 doi

  4. [12]

    doi:10.1086/149981 Lagage, P. O. and Cesarsky, C. J. (1983). The maximum energy of cosmic rays accelerated by supernova shocks. A&A 125, 249–257 Lee, M. A. and Völk, H. J. (1973). Damping and Non-Linear Wave-Particle Interactions of Alfvén- Waves in the Solar Wind. Astrophys. ...

    1983 doi

  5. [13]

    and Skilling, J

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/73 McIvor, I. and Skilling, J. (1974). The leakage of cosmic rays from the galaxy. MNRAS 167, 49–54. doi:10.1093/mnras/167.1.49 Menchiari, S., Morlino, G., Amato, E., Bucciantini, N., Peron, G., and Sacco, G. (2025). Contribution of young massive st...

    1974 doi

  6. [14]

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/732/1/3 Schroer, B., Caprioli, D., and Blasi, P. (2025). Role of Nonlinear Landau Damping for Cosmic-Ray Transport. Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 045201. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.045201 Schroer, B., Caprioli, D., and Blasi, P. (2026). Investigating nonlinear L...

    2025 doi

  7. [15]

    doi:10.1088/ 1475-7516/2025/09/041 Vieu, T., Gabici, S., Tatischeff, V., and Ravikularaman, S. (2022). Cosmic ray production in superbubbles. MNRAS 512, 1275–1293. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac543 Vieu, T. and Reville, B. (2023). Massive star cluster origin for the galactic cosmic ra...

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac590f Vittino, A., Evoli, C., Gaggero, D., Di Bernardo, G., Di Mauro, M., Ligorini, A., et al. (2018). DRAGON2 : A novel code for Cosmic-Ray transport in the Galaxy. Nuclear and Particle Physics Proceedings 297-299, 135–142. doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.201...

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.